.The (feral) felines have been introduced, to great effect, at several stations with rodent problems. Parker Center may get them too.

By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

One animal welfare group has figured out a way to save their (feral cats) lives and put them to work in Los Angeles. The Working Cats program of Voice for the Animals, a Los Angeles-based animal advocacy and rescue group, has placed feral cats in a handful of police stations with rodent problems, just as the group placed cats in the rat-plagued downtown flower district several years ago -- to great effect. Six feral cats were recently installed as ratters in the parking lot of the Los Angeles Police Department's Southeast Division, and another group will be housed at the Central Division early in the new year. Their reputation as furtive and successful exterminators grew after feral cats were introduced to the parking lot of the Wilshire Division nearly six years ago. Rats had been burrowing into the equipment bags that bicycle officers stored in outside cages; inside the facility, mice were sometimes scurrying across people's desks."Once we got the cats, problem solved," said Cmdr. Kirk Albanese, a captain at the Wilshire station at the time. "I was almost an immediate believer."After Albanese moved to the Foothill Division in the northern San Fernando Valley, he introduced feral cats to the building's mice-infested basement in 2004."I think it's a very humane way to deal with a very stubborn problem," said Albanese, now assistant to the director in the office of operations at Parker Center, which has its own rat problem. The cats don't generally solve the rodent problem by killing rats and mice -- although the cats are game for doing so if they catch them. Rather, the cats simply leave their scent. Once rodents get a whiff of feline presence, like gangsters under a gang injunction, they move on."It's the smell of the cat and the cat urine," said animal rescuer Jane Garrison, a member of Voice for the Animals' board, who selected the half dozen feral cats for the Southeast station. Less grisly than glue traps -- and usually more effective -- the cats go about their "work" naturally: "They prowl, they eat, they sit in the sun," said Melya Kaplan, founder and director of Voice for the Animals, who was responsible for putting cats in the flower markets.Sometimes they rest under police cars or on top of the warm car hoods. When the cats are new to an area -- as they are at Southeast -- they spend much of their time hiding from view.Garrison said the Working Cats program can be used anywhere. "We are willing to put cats in any safe area -- businesses, hotels, industrial parks, even residences -- and we will do that for free." Soon the ferals may get a chance to work their magic on the legions of rats that make their home behind Parker Center. "They're coming out of everywhere," said Officer April Harding, who works in media relations. "One time I stood in the parking lot and just watched in horror, like it was a movie."Thom Brennan, commanding officer of facilities management for the LAPD, said he was still figuring out the logistics of placing cats at Parker Center. "Nobody was more skeptical about it than I was," he said. "It sounds like too easy a fix. But everywhere it's been done, it's worked. . . . I think I'm convinced it's a viable program that will help us."For more information on "working" feral cats, go to http://vftafoundation.org/workingcats..

.We all know something is very wrong with Animal Services; we have been yelling about it long enough. It appears that Councilmember Bernard Parks wants to appear to be concerned and has asked for the real shelter numbers (It appears he may doubt the Boks' numbers) and to find out whether our allegations that shelter conditions and warehousing are contributing to the increased "death by cage" rates.

December 11, 2007PUBLIC SAFETY MOTION

According to a recent Daily News article, the number of dogs and cats dying from sickness, injury or natural causes in Los Angeles animal shelters has more than doubled in the past year. A city report found that in the year ending in October, animal deaths, for reasons other than euthanasia, rose from 1,462 to 3,312 - a 127% increase.

Animal shelter critics attribute the spike in kennel deaths to disease, fighting, injuries and neglect as a result of overcrowding. They also accuse the shelters of warehousing pets in a crude attempt to slow instances of euthanasia and to satisfy the City's "no-kill" mandate established in 2003.

In contrast, animal shelter officials attribute the losses to a recent effort to save animals with serious maladies or older pets that in previous years would have been euthanized.

The City is now completing a $160 million makeover of its seven shelters. With the large amount of funding being invested in animal shelters, the City needs to address the increasing number of animal deaths in City animal shelters.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) report on the increase of animal deaths at City animal shelters; such eport to include, but not limited, to the following:.Reconciling the various reports dealing with the cause of animal deaths in Los Angeles animal shelters;

. Reporting on the feasibility of obtaining access to recent statistics on all impounded animals, their health status, treatment and disposition; and.. Providing an objective analysis as to the issues raised, and possible solutions to the issue of animal deaths in City animal shelters.

PRESENTED BYBernard Parks,

Councilmember, Eighth District

Sounds good, doesn't it? But where will the CAO and CLA get their numbers, from Ed Boks maybe?I hope somebody petitions both these persons to involve the animal community when they look at our allegations and our analyses of Boks' numbers. Most of us have stopped because the numbers get more and more bizarre.

Even then don't hold your breath. After I complained to the Supervisors about Mayeda in August, they sent me Mayeda's response in the form of a letter wherein she repeated her lies. One of the Supervisors even sent her back a note saying, "Good letter!"If Parks is serious, he will name one of Boks' critics as an observer of the investigative process. If Parks is serious and wants to run for Mayor, what better an issue to pick than Villaraigosa backs boobs because he is one. He could also take a crack at Bratton about the Animal Cruelty Task Force..

.According to newly posted Commission minutes for October 9, "The Department has had conversations with the producers of the television show “Animal Precinct,”about putting together a five-show pilot featuring Los Angeles Animal Services."

.On October 22, Commissioner Riordan requested that information about Mason's missing cats be scheduled as an agenda item.That was well over two months ago and nothing. It is not listed even as a future item now.Boks has no more excuses to hide the information as there is no longer a criminal investigation, as the City Attorney has decided not to go forward with misdemeanor animal neglect charges.Maybe Boks still thinks he can bring charges in his Kangaroo Court.

A good reader comment below:

He knows he can't bring charges -- Cocek won't let him.

I think what he (and other people, maybe even in the Mayor's office) are finally getting through their thick, evil skulls is that there are laws, and he and his ill-trained ACTF went on TV and broke a bunch of them.

Sorry losers Mary Grady, Troy Boswell and Linda Ortega, in addition to Boks, have opened the city up to a massive lawsuit.Those sorry bastards are hiding, abusing, killing and losing those cats for no other reason than to cover up what has already been made clear. They broke the law, on television, in the Daily News and on YouTube, and the rescue community has the goods on them.

The sad part is while I'm sure Ron could use a few bucks just to make up for the loss of income all this brought into his life, I think he just wants his cats to be safe, to know that they're alive. And these evil incompetents won't give him even that.

.We have all long hoped Winograd would take on Boks, but it did not happen. He does not even mention Boks in his book Redemption except as a former director of Phoenix shelters, and Boks has not mentioned Winograd by name.But Boks, for some reason, decided to take on Winograd and write a series of blog posts on how Winogard's No Kill Equation was old hat and how he was doing as well or better than that equation. Bad timing; he should have done it six months ago.Last week, Nathan decided to attack and sue the County and Mayeda, Boks' Evil Twin. Of course she is an easier target because she has killed a couple of hundred thousand more cats and dogs than Boks.One would think Boks would have taken this opportunity to leave Winograd alone as the latter was now occupied in a battle with the County.For whatever reason, Boks' attacks on Nathan have become increasing personal at a time he should have been backing away and letting sleeping No-Kill gurus lie. Boks is none to kind about Carl Friedman in SF either, and uses two year old, pre-Winograd stats to prove Nathan's remaking Philadelphia is a failure.

After Boks' latest and most intense attack, Nathan has decided to directly engage Boks to the amusement of all of us. We can watch as their mutal contempt manifests and morphs.Ed's posts can be found on his blog, www.laanimalservices.blogspot.com, and Nathan's on his blog, www.nathanwinograd.blogspot.com.Both are now fighting a two-front war. Both would have been better served being indirect, especially if Winograd wants a contract with the City, and Boks has enough problems with the animal community including the watchbloggers.

Ed Boks, the controversial head of Los Angeles Animal Services, is misusing the No Kill Equation in order to justify a tenure in L.A. that has been marked by high killing, skyrocketing rates of animals dying in their kennels, and poor care. As I have repeatedly stated, this is an increasingly common tactic from those who are failing at saving lives.

Achieving No Kill, in which over 90% of animals entering a shelter are saved, requires replacing century-old failed protocols with innovative, life-affirming alternatives for every single animal, every single time. It is not enough to simply recycle sexy names for programs like “New Hope,” “FELIX,” and all the other public relations gimmicks and claim success as he did in Maricopa County even while 29,000 dogs and cats were being put to death. The programs must be implemented so that they replace killing entirely for all animals who can benefit from them, not just for the lucky few.

If Boks truly implemented all the programs he claims to, animals dying in kennel would not be skyrocketing as they are. They would be plummeting. Nor would deaths for rabbits and other animals be increasingly so dramatically. And, finally, where there are declines, they would be substantial.

Feeling the pressure to change, directors like Boks are implementing token level changes to their operations, some of which include the ones I describe in the No Kill Equation, both to diffuse criticism and to claim they “tried” these programs and they didn’t work as claimed.

Activists must be vigilant in demanding that those programs be expanded to the point that they replace killing entirely. These benchmarks, for example, include:

A fully functioning volunteer program where at least 300 people for every 100,000 human residents actually help at least one time per week at the shelter;

(Comment: This is unrealistic; this would require 12,000 volunteers working one day per week, or 2,000 per shelter, or 300 per day per shelter.)

Offsite adoptions at multiple locations seven days per week;

Socialization programs so that cats get out of their cages at least two times per day and dogs at least three times for walks and play time;

Medical & behavior rehabilitation programs that control disease, keep animals healthy, and provide care for those who are savable (the fact that the number of animals dying in kennel is skyrocketing at Los Angeles Animal Services is absolute proof that this is not being comprehensively implemented);

A fully functioning TNR program that replaces killing through neutering and release (See a model feral cat protocol by clicking here)

(Comment: This will be hard to do because of the opposition of environmental groups, CEQA legal requirements, and the opposition of some Councilmembers.)

Low and no cost spay/neuter opportunities for at risk animals, with a minimum of 1,000 surgeries for every 100,000 human residents (It should be noted that most successful communities around the country achieved success before the spay/neuter effort was in place);

(Comment: The LA program already exceeds these goals and by this coming year, they may exceed this goal by 35%.)

Adoption programs seven days a week with evening and weekend hours;

Carteblanche for legitimate rescue groups to save any animal on death row, any time without bureaucratic hurdles and permissions from a select group of animals;

(Comment: I think LA already has this.)

Programs above and beyond haphazard advice from hurried workers on the telephone to help owners overcome the behavioral, medical and environmental conditions which cause them to surrender their pets (A 1996 JAVMA study found that this reduces the chance of relinquishment by as much as 94%);

A compassionate, hard working director who holds his or her staff accountable, making sure customer service is good, people are friendly, animals are getting proper care, the shelter is clean, people are doing their jobs, all the cages and kennels are kept full if necessary, and programs and services are being expanded and carried out.

(Comment: This is Boks big failure: Taming the bureaucracy.)

But, in the entire history of animal sheltering, the transition from a culture based on killing to a culture of lifesaving has never happened without significant staff turnover.

In Philadelphia, all the managers and half the line staff were terminated or resigned within six months. In Reno, every manager was given the option of resignation or termination. The same holds true in Charlottesville, Tompkins, and other places. If Boks has not done that, there can be no true change. The end result is the same killing, packaged with new rhetoric—A false hope, not a new hope.

(Comment: This requirement is impossible in LA with a union and civil service. To be successful, Boks would have to ask for the assistance of a group like ADL to drive the bad eggs out, like some of the ACOs who send comments here.)

At the end of the day, the irony here is that if Boks spent his time putting the programs in place, rather than blogging about them without having done so (or attacking me personally), he would really become the hero he pretends to be. Instead, he simply pats himself on the back, while the animals in the shelter slowly die because of improper care and business as usual.

That is what makes the whole thing so obscene. And that is why he undermines the movement to save lives—because newspapers like the Daily News falsely think that No Kill by necessity means skyrocketing rates of disease and animals dying because of it, when communities which are succeeding have proven this to be patently false.

Let me close by saying that the high numbers of animals dying in kennel, which evidences lack of oversight, poor care, and neglect by shelter personnel; combined with the paltry declines in killing rates and in some cases, such as rabbits, shocking increases, put the lie to the claim about true and comprehensive No Kill Equation implementation. And no amount of blogging can spin the truth out of that.

.Boks claims in his bio that while in Arizona he created the first municipal mo kill shelter. It was pointed out to me that this was really an adoption center, not a shelter, and it is one thing to claim a no-kill adoption center and a no-kill shelter. I did visit this adoption center about three years ago and was told by an employee that the euthanasia rate for cats was about 12%. Imagine if the adoption center has a 12% kill rate for cats, what about the shelter-shelter?Below was sent out as an info email about Boks in Phoenix. I do not know if it is true, but it sounds true:I thought I might share our experiences in Phoenix, AZ with Monster Ed's outrageous ideas and presentations to our metropolitan area. In order for Boks to get more money to use to redecorate his office in Arizona and for other such NON shelter items, Ed finagled a piece of property on some acreage that used to be an old DMV, dubbed it the "Adoption Center" and created a not-for-profit 501c3 org.

He dubbed his Adoption Center as NO KILL. He just made sure not to mention those dogs that take longer to be noticed, become ill, or develop "behavioral issues" got transported right back to the shelter (about ten minutes away) and killed! The rescue community did not buy the lies he was feeding the public, but the media took his every word as gospel and continued to report inaccurate information. The Adoption Center was nothing more than a front for Ed. Finally, when everyone realized that Boks had taken money for his not for profit and no one could find out where the money went, (it certainly didn't go towards creating a true No Kill shelter,) he was run out of town.

We laughed at NYC for being so naive and buying Ed's deceptions - since so many of us celebrated joyfully after his departure from AZ. NY finally figured it out and fired him. But Los Angeles didn't heed the warnings or research the situation carefully enough - and it, too, has now fallen into Ed's trap..

.Lawsuit against County's Animal Care is all over the Internet now.Too bad Winogard did not sue the City. He knows the City shelters are run much better than County, but still, Boks is on the run and Mayeda is even more sheltered than he by the Mayor. Maybe Nathan figures he can still get a contract with the City if he does not attack them directly. I hope this is his thinking and I hope it works. He didn't attack Boks in Redemption although he did the County. Anyway, the links:

.A few days ago I sent Ed Boks a Request for Public Records for copies of the list of cats seized on October 11 from Mason's house as mandated must be provided by Penal Code 597.1. The contents of the code and a copy of my request is in an earlier post on this blog. The impounding agency MUST provide the owner a list of seized animals as well as their location and the procedure for getting them back. The owner must be left a Declaration form which provides instructions to request a Postseizure Hearing to establish the need for impound and how the owner--Ron Mason--can get the animals back.I have been waiting to see what Boks comes up with, because I know what Mason truly did receive as shown by the photo below. This was mailed to Mason 6 days after the bust. It is signed by Linda Ortega. Lt. Boswell's name and phone number are also at the bottom of the form.

This "Receipt for Property Taken Into Custody" does not even list 1 animal!

Click on photos for larger image

(Please excuse the horizontal format. When I rotate the image, it does not allow zooming for a closeup.) The Receipt lists amoxi drops, Clavamox, flea powder and store receipts. It also lists a "blue folder." This folder contained all of Mason's veterinarian treatment records, which he cannot access without a court order. But it does not list even one cat! What was the purpose of the raid? To seize used Amoxi drops?

Not only were none of the 52 evidence cats seized listed, but it does not list any of the 15 or so cages and traps Mason was using to transport the animals for spay/neutering and medical care by Cynthia Hockman, his veterinarian at the time, who is now working for Animal Services.Mason still has not been able to get them back despite many, many calls to Lt. Boswell, whose name and phone number you can see at the bottom of this form.Apparently LAAS, Boks, and the ACTF just decided to take and destroy the cats, and therefore didn't want to leave a paper trail for anyone to follow and locate these animals including their medical condition. Remember, as I posted earlier, the whistleblower said the Animal Services vet told the ACTF on the day of the bust that the six cats seized two days earlier were not sick. They went ahead with the bust anyhow because City TV/Animal Precinct camera crews were there. Why spoil good TV footage just because it was known the cats' lives were not in immediate danger as required by PC 597(b) before an animal can be seized? Also, we don't want to look stupid getting 30 people out at 6:00 a.m. and then finding out we had no probably cause to justify the bust.

In his Fact vs. Rumor post about the Mason bust, Ed Boks said the information that the cats did not have panleukemia came back the day after the raid, when, in fact, the Animal Services vet (Hopefully Dr. Rao) told the ACTF they were healthy on the day of the raid. Once again Boks is caught lying.Boks and the ACTF have royally screwed up every aspect of this case. They tape everything on TV but fail to read Mason his rights and refuse to give him a list of the "rescued" cats as required by law. Wasn't this what the whole raid was about, saving the allegedly endangered and neglected animals' lives?

I have lots more to post, such as an Order to Comply dated June 20, 2006 to get "Johnny" (An orange and white tabby) looked at by a veterinarian. Johnny was the old cat shown in the video of the Mason raid walking around between the cops feet, eating out of a tipped over food bin. (Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_kJ9nGiVis)

Click for larger Image.

Below is a copy of a form signed by Johnny's treating veterinarian the day after Mason got the order. The vet found nothing was wrong with Johnny except age, so gave Mason a certificate that Johnny was sterilized to show the department. Who signed that form? Cynthia Hockman, Animal Services next-to-newest vet.I also have the folders of cats being treated by Hockman: Garfunkel, Rocky, Casper, Hip Hop, Hilda, Scery, and, of course, Muffin.

These are only the tip of the iceberg amount of vet records compared to all the vet records confiscated by the ACTF contained in the "Blue Folder."

I also have the vet record of treatment for Burt, the cat with the surgical pin insert, including the type of surgery, dates and other medication received, including Laxatone, Amoxi, and, get this, a four month supply of Advantage. There is proof Mason was even giving his poor, neglected cats Advantage!

The sheer criminality demonstrated by Boks and the ACTF in this Mason case is something one would expect to come out of the LAPD in the 70s, not in 2007. Maybe Bratton has made things worse again? Has he lost control?.

This is far more than a case of embarrassing Ron, it's both slandering AND libeling him, since it's both television and in print on LAAS' site, the Daily News site, and dailynews.com, with knowingly false statements provided by LAAS and LAPD.It's also malicious prosecution and false arrest.It's also, ironically enough, felony animal abuse.Petition to stop Ed Boks career. Hopefully he will never get another job "sheltering" animals.http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/end-abuse-in-the-department-of-los-angeles-animal-services

.No wonder Boks and the LAPD are hiding all impound records for Mason's cats. No wonder they did not leave a list of cats impounded. No wonder why they did not have a Postseizure Hearing. No wonder they have refused Public Records Requests about the location and disposition of the seized cats.

From an email sent to me:

Cocek stood up to Boks and refused to file criminal charges. This is what Ed Boks is hiding from everyone:The first 6 cats the LAPD took were not sick at all, but they killed them anyway.They took 52 cats from Mason's house; 40 went to the West Valley shelter - 25 were killed. 12 went to the South LA shelter - 3 escaped out a window and no one knows where they are.The LAPD is also hiding from everyone is that the Animal Services veterinarian who went to Ron's house the day of the raid (October 11), told the LAPD that the first six cats were not sick after all. LAPD went ahead and took the cats anyway because they wanted to show off for the City TV (Animal Planet Audition tape) film crew. They wanted to get on TV. Ron was set up.No wonder no one trusts the police or Boks.---------------------------

This email information certainly sounds true, or at least like something Boks would do for headlines. It would explain why Boks has hidden all the animals from Mason and the public, as well as the impound records and all of Mason's veterinary treatment records, as well as the Orders to Comply that were signed off on by Mason's former veterinarian who now works for Animal Services.

If this is true, it calls into question EVERY OTHER ACTF and LAAS bust and conviction..

.I have been covering every detail about the Mason raid, the killing of healthy cats, Mason's veterinarian now working for Boks, the disappearance of Mason's cats and all other evidence, the refusal of the District Attorney and City Attorney to go forward with criminal charges, the failure to Mirandize Mason, the LAASwebsite that says Mason is a hoarder, mentally ill, and guilty of felony animal neglect without a trial, etc., etc.This blog as covered this case since October 16. To see the entire case including photos, readers must see the archived posts in October and November.Yhe more I hear from insiders about what happened, the sicker I get.

.A few days ago I heard a rumor that Don Cocek had decided to buck Boks and the ACTF and refused to go forward with misdemeanor 597(b) animal neglect charges. I also heard the Cocek is a good guy who loves animals and this is his foremost concern--we'll see if this is true or not.In the meantime, although no charges have been filed, Boks and the cops can say the case is still under investigation and they can deny Mason--and us--with knowledge of where Mason's cats are and if any, including Muffin, Johnny or Burt, are still alive.However, today Mason received an unsigned letter from the City Attorney's Office stating there was a complaint that Mason had too many cats (LA Municipal Code 53.50) as of October 11, and unhealthful conditions and that he was to appear at the City Attorney's Office on January 16 in Van Nuys. The letter said to bring all vet records and other records to the hearing. Of course Mason doesn't have any records, Boks and the ACTF has them all and they aren't letting Mason or anyone else see them.Violation of 53.50 is a permit violation, not a misdemeanor or felony. The remedy would be for Mason to apply for a permit, and NOT TO SIGN ALL OF HIS CATS OVER TO LAAS AS BOKS WANTS.Boks doesn't want to be accountable for the total of 57 cats seized and probably most or all destroyed. He doesn't want it to become public that Animal Services and the ACTF broke almost every rule of arrest procedure in this case, such as not Mirandizing Mason, providing a list and description of his seized animals or their whereabouts, and then denying him a Postseizure Hearing about the cats, the rightfulness of their seizure and how he could get them back, BECAUSE they did not leave a Declaration form that he could request a Postseizure Hearing or tell him this to his face. I have read section 53 of the municipal code over and over and backwards, as have my legal research associates. So far as we can tell, 53.50 IS NOT ENFORCEABLE! There are no fines attached to a violation of this permit requirement under this code.AND, ANIMAL SERVICES CANNOT SEIZE ANY ANIMAL, NOT IN IMMANENT DANGER, FOR A SIMPLE CODE VIOLATION. They can issue an Order to Comply, but they do not have the authority to seize animals. Keeping four or more cats is a permit violation only. The remedy is to apply for a permit to the General Manager. If Ed refuses to issue the permit, he can send ACO to Ron's property and if they find more than three cats they can issue and order to comply. There is then no way to enforce that order concerning number.So, Boks has the City spend tens of thousands of dollars for a raid with 30-40 people, cops, ACTF, Animal Services, vets, social worker, County health, etc., then maybe hundreds of hours in a protracted investigationapparently still going on, many hours by the DA and the City Attorney for a code violation??

This Mason case will be a test case for everyone in the rescue community that has more than three cats or dogs. It is a big deal..

.It's raining and soon will get cold after the cold front passes through. Those who have the time and inclination, please take cameras to the shelters to see if the dogs are kept warm and dry.Email me any telling photos, one way or another. Another thing would be to bring a thermometer, check temperatures and photograph thermometers next to or near a kennel for examples of poor temperature maintenance.Photograph anyone denying access to the kennels. Many still digital cameras can take rudimentary videos.

Under these provision of CPC 597.1, I request with regard to the seizure of 6 kittens (Actually 12 by my count) on October 9, and 51 cats on October 11, taken from my property copies of:

1. Notice of the seizure or impoundment, which would include:

2. A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.

3. A Statement of the authority and purpose for the seizure or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.

4. A statement that I had a right to request a postseizure hearing.4. A copy of the declaration of ownership required to be given to me on thee day of impoundment, October 11, 2007.5. A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to me until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.

5. Any evidence that Animal services, the LAPD or the LAACTF made reasonable efforts to notify me of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the animals.

Most of all I am requesting information on the location and disposition of all cats seized from my property on October 9 and 11. Which ones are still alive? Where are they? How can I get them back as per 597.1?

I'm afraid the information contained in your response is incorrect, and represents yet another instance of Director Mayeda's office giving inconsistent, and demonstrably false information, both to the public and the Supervisors to whom she should be accountable.

It has been reported for months, at least, that there is no proper heating system for the County shelters. And until now, the Supervisors were so far from disputing this that after Zephyr's death, when a constituent called (I believe) Supervisor Burke's office about the issue they were reportedly told that they could bring heaters, but that the County would not be paying for them.

In my conversation with Mr. Aaron Nevarez at Supervisor Knabe's office on December 13th, he told me that Director Mayeda's office had informed him that they were 'in process' to purchase heaters. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that December is not the time to be 'in process' buying heaters, why did Director Mayeda apparently tell your office that there is in fact a heating system already in place? This is not a case of misunderstanding, the two stories directly contradict each other.

In addition, if there was a heating system in place, why weren't any of the people who donated blankets told about it? Have any of the Supervisors ever gone to a shelter, unannounced, and actually verified anything that is being told to them by Director Mayeda? And, as I pointed out to Mr. Nevarez last week, why would anyone fold soiled blankets?

I volunteer at a private rescue fourteen hours a week and can inform you from the front lines that that is not what happens to soiled blankets. The should be placed in a container until they're washed, so as not to present a health hazard. No one in their right mind would fold them and place them on the ground, in the rain.

In addition, if Zephyr was in fact suffering from a second upper respiratory infection, this underlines the seriousness of the pictures in which medication is strewn on the ground, rather than being given to the dogs. It also emphasizes the need for clean, dry, habitable dog runs, which Director Mayeda and County employees are not providing, according to the photographic evidence.

If the County is paying this woman $170,000 every year, don't you think she should have had the foresight to purchase industrial washing equipment quite some time ago? Have any of you ever tried to wash a load of full-sized, dog-soiled blankets in a household washing machine? Why are we paying six figures annually to a woman who authorized the purchase of equipment that any minimally qualified person could have foreseen would be completely inadequate for the needs of a County animal shelter?

I hope that before your meeting tomorrow you discuss among yourselves the various and contradictory pieces of information being given to you by Director Mayeda, so that you will be clear on the extent of what will need to be covered by your requested report. The varying accounts Director Mayeda's office is giving you are directly contradicted by the evidence contained in the photos.

So as this is investigated, I'm hoping that all the Supervisors are assiduous about getting your information from multiple sources, including volunteers, former volunteers, the people who took these pictures, and former employees; in addition to Director Mayeda, her records, and her current employees. As you have seen, they have a strong imperative to make themselves look as good as possible, with 6-figure county salaries on the line..

.Is the reason that no list of seized cats was provided to Mr. Mason, or Chameleon records of the seized cats to Brad Jensen as requested by Mr. Jensen in a request for public records, that Animal Services never officially impounded the cats or kept any records, and they were immediately sent to be killed?

Anonymous comment asked whether Mason established proof of ownership of the animals with photos and medical records. I assume this is from an arch defender of the department, such as Pat. Anyone is from the send comments to my email address included on this site: edwardmuzika@gmail.com.

This is a ridiculous rebuttal as 5971.(f) clearly states the notice and description of the seized animals must be left at or near the site of impoundment including the description of the animals, or in the hand of the owner or keeper of the animals with that person.

In addition, if the animals were not his, how can he be charged with 597 animal negligence?

If they were his, they would have to provide that notice.

Mason requested a list of the these animals many times and was flatly refused by shelter personnel. Ortega has refused to talk to him and Don Cocek never answered Mason's calls.

On October 15 he did receive a list of confiscated items, but the list did not include a description or location of the cats, nor did it list the location of his cages and traps which are still "missing" and not returned to him. I will post the contents of that list from LAPD.

It is obvious that they just walked away with the cats figuring Mason was poor and could not fight the City.

He was referred to a bunch of cages behind the West Valley shelter that were old and broken down and told he could take any he wanted. None were his traps. Also, most of his vet records were confiscated, he cannot prove ownership.

I asked for proof that any such notice or declaration was left with him or on his property where the animals were seized.

597.1(f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall,prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both.

(1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:(A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice. (B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.(D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days…The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.(E) A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.(2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. (l) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the anima..

.Ed Boks denied a request for public records for Chameleon records of cats seized from Ron Mason by LAAS/ACTF on October 9 and 11. He refused. However, CA Penal Code 597.1 requires the seizing/impounding agency to supply the owner with several documents on the day of impoundment, including a description of each animal and its location, as well as the reason for seizure, and a norice of his right for a postseizure hearing regarding whether the impoundment was proper and procedures for Mr. Mason to recover his animals.

A written request by Ron Mason is being mailed to Mr. Boks requesting the same information as below.

My Request this date to Ed Boks and others:

A request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268.Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or the email address below.

BACKGROUND:

On October 30, 2007, Brad Jensen submitted a Request for Records under the California Public Records Act to Ed Boks, regarding all Chameleon information regarding animals seized from the premises of Ron Mason on October 9 and October 11 (Attached). The request was denied stating that information was part of an ongoing criminal investigation regarding possible violations of section 597(B) of the California Penal Code, therefore the department was “unable” to release it.

However, under California Penal Code 597.1, the impounding agency must:

(f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others,the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both.

(1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:(A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice. (B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.(D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days…The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.(E) A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.(2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. (l) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the anima.

INFORMATION REQUESTED:

Therefore, under these provision of CPC 597.1, I request with regard to the seizure of 6 kittens on October 9, and 51 cats on October 11, taken from Mr. Mason copies of:

1. Notice of the seizure or impoundment, which would include

2. A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.3. A Statement of the authority and purpose for the seizure or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.3. A statement that Mr. Mason had a right to request a postseizue hearing.

4. A copy of the declaration of ownership.

5. A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.6. Any evidence that Animal services, the LAPD or the LAACTF made reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the anima.

Form of Information RequestedThe information requested may be electronically imaged and transferred to the email address above.Denial and RedactionShould you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.FeesI am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.

.This morning I posted an anonymous comment form someone in management at the Philadelphia municipal shelter who stated that the challenges posed to remaking a shelter system that has both a union and civil service are not insurmountable, and it only takes one dedicated man such as in Philly. Maybe the comment was from the wife of the one dedicated man, I don’t know. (joke)

Well, I just received a post from someone in administration at LAAS showing some problems Philly has as was printed in an online article. The major complaints about PAWS was the facility itself, and lack of cleaning, therefore a health issue. However, even given the health issue, all recognized they were the result of a horrible facility, much like Boks was confronted with when he went to NYC and which he endlessly complained about. Here, we do not have that problem.

I talked Tara Derby this morning for 20 minutes or so. I got her talk on the problems in Philly as well as her euth, died in shelter and live save rates, also her budget and staff.

Let’s put Philly and LA in perspective.

From January 1 to November 30, Philly impounded 26,440 cats and dogs.

LA Impounded 43,900.

Philly handled 60% cats and dogs as LA, but had only 64 FTE employees, compared to 340 at LAAS, which has about 5 times as many.

Philly has an annual budget of $3.35 Million compared to LA’s $24.0 million, or 7 times as much. (I can never tell what the real budget of LA is or how many employees it has, as it seems to vary every time Ed talks)

They had one dilapidated shelter with 120 dog runs and 150 cat cages, versus 6 (or is it 7) new structures with maybe 7 or 8 times as many runs and cages.

YET, the euth rate for cats and dogs was 38.6% compared to LAAS 41% last year, and the live saves at Philly was 60.5% compared to 52% at LAAS last year. The Died in Shelter rate was 1% in Philly compared to over 3% for LAAS and which is still rising. That is, the died in shelter rate at LA is three times that of Philly despite the supposed extreme health problems presented by the facility. One guy there said PAWS had to get out, that no amount of money pumped into repairing the building would do any good.

Get this, not one “Other Animal” died in captivity this year in Philadelphia! Zero!

LA gives about $6.25 for every resident, while Philly Paws gets less than a third of that, or $1.97. If they got the same per capita, Philly’s budget would be $10,800,000 instead of Tara’s paltry budget of $3.35 million. Philly is a much poorer city than LA. Like LA 65-70% of the shelter dogs are pit bulls or mixes.

Yet, by every measure, Philly outperforms LA Animal Services in terms of animals handled per employee, adopted per employee, saved per employee, saved per dollar, adopted per dollar. The euth rate is lower, the save rate is higher and the died-in-shelter rate is less than 1/3 that of LA, no matter what the disease issue is.

AND, LA has had the advantage of a $140,000,000 bond issue to build and renovate seven shelters.

Notice how apologetic everyone in Philly is about their 1% death rate and they will fix it, while Ed blames older animals and does not mention overcrowding. Tara said her shelter is always crowded because it is so small and they handle so many animals.

(By the way, Tara and I both agree with Ed that very low coast adoptions make a big difference. I would support Ed in blowing the budget by waiving or reducing fees.)

All this progress, going from an 85-90% kill rate through March of 2005, to a 38.6% kill rate all during this year including kitten season. This is better than LAAS' during the past past 10 years.

This is the context. The article clearly states what Derby told me, it is a crappy, creepy building with only 1/3-1/4 the facilities they need and budget they need; yet, they are far outperforming Ed Boks’ shelters.

The real question is, given the huge disparity in budgets, manpower and facilities compared to Philly, why isn't LA at No-Kill now, that is, a kill rate under 15%? I think here Bickhart is right, it is a dysfunctional department, but it is Boks' job to fix it, and he hasn't.)

We spent some time this morning with her hand calculating the statistics. It seems they just recently added inventory software similar to Chameleon. The figures are added as a comment. I warn you, these are hand calculated figures over a phone and she will send me more accurate figures later.

.County in an uproar over Carson photos shown on this blog. Mayeda has fired volunteers and is refusing rescue groups access to promised animals. Mayeda effectively is closing down the Carson and apparently the Lancaster shelters and not allowing outside access. Volunteer suspected of taking the photos has been banned.Supervisor Knabe promises investigation and rectification. Of course you know what that means--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING despite my uncoveringMayeda's gross incompetence and giving that information to the Supervisors 3-1/2 months ago. One supervisor even told Mayeda that her bull crap response to my charges was a "Good letter."I will report on this in depth later, but right now the Mason story is foremost because of the video televised yesterday as well as Philadelphia's challenge to Boks to make LAAS perform better..

.That video is unbelieveably creepy. And could Mary Grady, the LAPD information officer, get any more smarmy and insincere?

Two points. For those of us who watch "Animal Precinct" and all the other HLE shows, you always see a disclaimer that everyone shown is innocent until proven guilty. Yet this show didn't say that at all, anywhere. They give Ron's full name, etc. Looks like pretty clear grounds for a lawsuit against Boks, the City, the ACTF, LAAS, City TV, et al.

Second, I've spoken to Ron, so I know he's not crazy. But they spend all this time in the video talking about how he's a hoarder, and how hoarding is a mental disease, and how people who hoard generally have OCD, etc. Their main premise is that Ron has a mental disorder (which hardly squares with the degree of premeditation and intent that would be required to commit FELONY animal cruelty, but let's leave that by the wayside for the moment).

If they believe Ron has a mental disorder, then handcuffing him at the crack of dawn, pointing a camera at him, and then asking for his consent to be photgraphed, filmed and questioned flat-out constitutes forcing him to consent under duress. Especially since there's no evidence of his having been advised that he could have an attorney which, since they admit on-camera that he has NO criminal record, isn't something that would be foremost in his mind.

On top of which, anyone who's seen "Animal Precinct" knows Ron's house could have been A LOT worse. It's not running in House Beautiful anytime soon, but then neither's mine. Not against the law to be a bad housekeeper.

Most importantly for everyone who reads this, or who knows anyone with animals: Keep copies of all your vet records off-site, or keep your vet records off-site. A warrant has to be for a specific location. If they want a copy of your vet records, make sure you get to dictate the circumstances under which they get them. If they want to make copies make sure you're there or your attorney is there to see what's copied.

Second, God love Ron. He thought if he told people what actually happened the facts would be enough. He's a nice guy, but he's dealing with extremely bad people. You see a cop, you say "Lawyer!" They ask you anything, you say "Lawyer!" They accuse you of torturing kittens on television, you say, "Lawyer!" And you do not say one other syllable.If Ron had asked for a lawyer, he probably wouldn't even need one anymore..

.Ed Boks publicly convicted Ron Mason of felony animal neglect CPC 597(B) and City TV35 aired the raid of his house, wherein accusations were made that the the cats had panleukemia when they did not and the warrant was based on health issues. You have denied Mr. Mason's MULTIPLE requests to tell him where his cats are and their final disposition. Boks said 25 cats were killed, including all the kittens because of irremediable suffering.Yet you have denied Mr. Mason the opportunity for a Postseizure Hearing as provided for by California Penal Code 597. Y.u even failed to tell him he has a right to a Postseizure Hearing.You failed to provide Mr. Mason with information as to location of his cats as required under CA PC 597.This is irrespective of whether there is an investigation or not. In fact, the Postseizure Hearing is supposed to be part of the investigation process to establish validity of the seizure and ownership.Officer Ortega said photos of the cats would be taken.

CA PC 597:

(d) An animal control agency that takes possession of an animal pursuant to subdivision (c) shall keep records of the whereabouts of the animal from the time of possession to the end of the animal's impoundment, and those records shall be available for inspection by the public upon request for three years after the date the animal's impoundment ended. ---

(f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. ---

(1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:(A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice. ---(B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.(D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days, including weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice. The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.I WOULD NOTE THAT MR. MASON WAS NEVER GIVEN A DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP FORM.

(2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The seizing agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who directed the seizure or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing officer(k) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of this section, or Section 597 or 597a, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other disposition.

SO Misters Boks, Cocek, Delgadillo and Villaraigosa, where are Mason's cats? Why was there no Postseizure Hearing? Ask them.

.If everyone who visits a City or County shelter carries a camera, things might change for the better right away. Take photos and provide the context and I will post if the photo proves the point.IF YOU ARE REFUSED ACCESS BECAUSE OF THE CAMERA, AND IF YOUR CAMERA HAS MOVIE AND SOUND CAPACITY, PHOTOGRAPH THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS REFUSING YOU ACCESSS. I CAN POST THAT TOO.GO GET THEM!

.As you know, I have touted the enormous success of Philladelphia that has gone from a 85% kill rate in 2004 to a 60% save rate today. I talked before to Tara Derby who said they have the same union as the employees at Animal Services. She said even a strong union is not a blockage to getting rid of bad employees.

I have been assured by management here that what happened in Philly cannot be duplicated here because we also have civil service.

This was just received as a comment from someone in the Philly system. It is a challenge to Ed Boks to get rid of bad employees. Here is the comment:

Out here in Philly (VERY strong union) we just brought in a new COO who has been cleaning house since the day he started (only 3 months ago). You are right, it is challenging managing employees who think they are protected buy a union/civil...but because he is committed to getting rid of the employees who needed to leave (most YEARS ago) -- it doesn't matter who the employees pay dues too as long as someone (anyone) holds the employees (and managers) accountable for their actions. Stop painting a picture that a union/civil is a roadblock to getting things done--this is a poor excuse. In Philly we have seen positive change after change in 3 short months -- because one guy stood up and said, "not on my watch!!" LA can do the same..

Just when you think things are getting better at Animal Services compared to the County Slaughterhoues, we find the same thing happening at Boks' North Central shelter. Look at the photos and the commentary by the photographer.

Click on the photo to enlarge it.THIS IS NOT A MAYEDA SHELTER, BUT A BOKS SHELTER.

Please share the frustration my friend and I felt as we had to witness the shivering, totally wet puppies at North Central the day it was raining. The "inside" area that supposedly is "heated" was also completely soaking wet. There was no blanket or raised area for the puppies. ALL the dogs except the few cages on the "walk wall" side were soaking wet and utterly miserable.This is not a weather problem, this is a personnel problem. and it starts at the top with Ed Boks. No dog in the LAAS system should be cold or wet and we should not stand for it.

If you haven't already, please call Mr. Boks [head of the L.A. animal shelters system] and email the Commissioners to rectify this problem immediately. Blankets may be a temporary fix , but it seems that in Carson [where a dog named Zephyr died in the cold], they couldn't be bothered to keep the blankets dry or even distribute them to the kennels.

Boks' email: Ed.boks@lacity.orgVillaraigosa: mayor@lacity.org

---------------------

We desperately need a state agency to investigate animalcruelty and neglect both at LA County Animal Care and Control as well as at LA Animal Services.

.Seems Mayeda fired a volunteer who she thought took the photos on my earlier Mayeda's Slaughterhouse post. Seems she and the department have left the department for a bunker after the onslaught of community outrage and tons of protesting emails to supervisors.It is astounding, but I am getting 200 visits a day now and a full 2/3 start with the Slaughterhouse post.Below is an email sent to me originally sent to Mayeda and the Supervisors:

Marcia,It has been brought to my attention that you suspended the volunteer status of a Carson volunteer this morning because you believe she took the pictures of the medication on the floor and medication cards where dosing of medications were missed. This volunteer *did not* take those photos. I am hereby demanding that you reinstate her volunteer status. It is a great disservice to the animals of Carson to have her suspended. It is very deceptive that you've now removed all medical cards from the cages at Carson to cover up your lack of properly treating animals. Josie Zabala stated, "all your concerns are being dealt with to the fullest," in regards to Carson's medical staffs failure to properly medicate animals. If this is what dealt to the fullest means, then this is yet another indicator your department is in shambles. Michelle asked me to follow up this week as to the status of the investigation on Justin's neglect at Carson. I did on Monday and still haven't heard back. I'm sure his neglect was investigated as fully as the medication cover up.The animal rescue community will be made aware of this and your department's continued abuse of the public trust.Ryan Olshan.